Report calls for immediate action on Indian power deficit

U.S. Solar Generation 2017 surpassed biomass, delivering 77 million MWh versus 64 million MWh, trailing only hydro and wind; driven by PV expansion, capacity additions, and utility-scale and small-scale growth, per EIA.

Key Points

It was the year U.S. solar electricity exceeded biomass, hitting 77 million MWh and trailing only hydro and wind.

✅ Solar: 77 million MWh; Biomass: 64 million MWh (2017, EIA)

✅ PV expansion; late-year capacity additions dampen annual generation

✅ Hydro: 300 and wind: 254 million MWh; solar thermal ~3 million MWh

Electricity generation from solar resources in the United States reached 77 million megawatthours (MWh) in 2017, surpassing for the first time annual generation from biomass resources, which generated 64 million MWh in 2017. Among renewable sources, only hydro and wind generated more electricity in 2017, at 300 million MWh and 254 million MWh, respectively. Biomass generating capacity has remained relatively unchanged in recent years, while solar generating capacity has consistently grown.

Annual growth in solar generation often lags annual capacity additions because generating capacity tends to be added late in the year. For example, in 2016, 29% of total utility-scale solar generating capacity additions occurred in December, leaving few days for an installed project to contribute to total annual generation despite being counted in annual generating capacity additions. In 2017, December solar additions accounted for 21% of the annual total. Overall, solar technologies operate at lower annual capacity factors and experience more seasonal variation than biomass technologies.

Biomass electricity generation comes from multiple fuel sources, such as wood solids (68% of total biomass electricity generation in 2017), landfill gas (17%), municipal solid waste (11%), and other biogenic and nonbiogenic materials (4%).These shares of biomass generation have remained relatively constant in recent years, even as renewables' rise in 2020 across the grid.

Solar can be divided into three types: solar thermal, which converts sunlight to steam to produce power; large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV), which uses PV cells to directly produce electricity from sunlight; and small-scale solar, which are PV installations of 1 megawatt or smaller. Generation from solar thermal sources has remained relatively flat in recent years, at about 3 million MWh, even as renewables surpassed coal in 2022 nationwide. The most recent addition of solar thermal capacity was the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy plant installed in Nevada in 2015, and currently no solar thermal generators are under construction in the United States.

Solar photovoltaic systems, however, have consistently grown in recent years, as indicated by 2022 U.S. solar growth metrics across the sector. In 2014, large-scale solar PV systems generated 15 million MWh, and small-scale PV systems generated 11 million MWh. By 2017, annual electricity from those sources had increased to 50 million MWh and 24 million MWh, respectively, with projections that solar could reach 20% by 2050 in the U.S. mix. By the end of 2018, EIA expects an additional 5,067 MW of large-scale PV to come online, according to EIA’s Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, with solar and storage momentum expected to accelerate. Information about planned small-scale PV systems (one megawatt and below) is not collected in that survey.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

San Juan Generating Station eyed for $1 coal-plant sale, as Farmington and Acme propose CCS retrofit, meeting emissions caps and renewable mandates by selling captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery via a nearby pipeline.

Key Points

A New Mexico coal plant eyed for $1 and a CCS retrofit to cut emissions and sell CO2 for enhanced oil recovery.

✅ $400M-$800M CCS retrofit; 90% CO2 capture target

✅ CO2 sales for enhanced oil recovery; 20-mile pipeline gap

✅ PNM projects shutdown savings; renewable and emissions mandates

One dollar. That’s how much an aging New Mexico coal plant is worth. And by some estimates, even that may be too much.

Acme Equities LLC, a New York-based holding company, is in talks to buy the 847-megawatt San Juan Generating Station for $1, after four of its five owners decided to shut it down. The fifth owner, the nearby city of Farmington, says it’s pursuing the bargain-basement deal with Acme to avoid losing about 1,600 direct and indirect jobs in the area amid a broader just transition debate for energy workers.

We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical

Acme’s interest comes as others are looking to exit a coal industry that’s been plagued by costly anti-pollution regulations. Acme’s plan: Buy the plant "at a very low cost," invest in carbon capture technology that will lower emissions, and then sell the captured CO2 to oil companies, said Larry Heller, a principal at the holding group.

By doing this, Acme “believes we can generate an acceptable rate of return,” Heller said in an email.

Meanwhile, San Juan’s majority owner, PNM Resources Inc., offers a distinctly different view, echoing declining coal returns reported by other utilities. A 2022 shutdown will push ratepayers to other energy alternatives now being planned, saving them about $3 to $4 a month on average, PNM has said.

“We could not identify a solution that would make running San Juan Generating Station economical,” said Tom Fallgren, a PNM vice president, in an email.

The potential sale comes as a new clean-energy bill, supported by Governor Lujan Grisham, is working its way through the state legislature. It would require the state to get half of its power from renewable sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045, even as other jurisdictions explore small modular reactor strategies to meet future demand. At the same time, the legislation imposes an emissions cap that’s about 60 percent lower than San Juan’s current levels.

In response, Acme is planning to spend $400 million to $800 million to retrofit the facility with carbon capture and sequestration technology that would collect carbon dioxide before it’s released into the atmosphere, Heller said. That would put the facility into compliance with the pending legislation and, at the same time, help generate revenue for the plant.

The company estimates the system would cut emissions by as much as 90 percent, and the captured gas could be sold to oil companies, which uses it to enhance well recovery. The bottom line, according to Heller: “A winning financial formula.”

It’s a tricky formula at best. Carbon-capture technology has been controversial, even as new coal plant openings remain rare, expensive to install and unproven at scale. Additionally, to make it work at the San Juan plant, the company would need to figure out how to deliver the CO2 to customers since the nearest pipeline is about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away.

Reducing costs

Acme is also evaluating ways to reduce costs at San Juan, Heller said, including approaches seen at operators extending the life of coal plants under regulatory scrutiny, such as negotiating a cheaper coal-supply contract and qualifying for subsidies.

Farmington’s stake in the plant is less than 10 percent. But under terms of the partnership, the city — population 45,000 — can assume full control of San Juan should the other partners decide to pull out, mirroring policy debates over saving struggling nuclear plants in other regions. That’s given Farmington the legal authority to pursue the plant’s sale to Acme.

At the end of the day, nobody wants the energy

“We respectfully disagree with the notion that the plant is not economical,” Farmington Mayor Nate Duckett said by email. Ducket said he’s in better position than the other owners to assess San Juan’s importance “because we sit at Ground Zero.”

The city’s economy would benefit from keeping open both the plant and a nearby coal mine that feeds it, according to Duckett, with operations that contribute about $170 million annually to the local area.

While the loss of those jobs would be painful to some, Camilla Feibelman, a Sierra Club chapter director, is hard pressed to see a business case for keeping San Juan open, pointing to sector closures such as the Three Mile Island shutdown as evidence of shifting economics. The plant isn’t economical now, and would almost certainly be less so after investing the capital to add carbon-capture systems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Energy Price Cap Cut 2024 signals relief as wholesale gas prices fall; Ofgem price cap drops per Cornwall Insight, aided by LNG supply, mild winter, despite Red Sea tensions and Ukraine conflict impacts.

Key Points

A forecast cut to Great Britain's Ofgem price cap as wholesale gas falls, easing typical annual household bills in 2024.

✅ Cap falls from £1,928 to £1,620 in April 2024

✅ Forecast £1,497 in July, then about £1,541 from October

✅ Drivers: lower wholesale gas, LNG supply, mild winter

Households in Great Britain are set to experience a significant reduction in energy costs this spring, with bills projected to drop by over £300 annually. This decrease is primarily due to a decline in wholesale gas prices, offering some respite to those grappling with the cost of living crisis.

Cornwall Insight, a well-regarded industry analyst, predicts a 16% reduction in average bills from the previous quarter, potentially reaching the lowest levels since the onset of the Ukraine conflict.

The industry’s price cap, indicative of the average annual bill for a typical household, is expected to decrease from the current £1,928, set earlier this month, to £1,620 in April – a reduction of £308 and £40 less than previously forecasted in December, as ministers consider ending the gas-electricity price link to improve market resilience.

Concerns about escalating tensions in the Red Sea, where Houthi rebels have disrupted global shipping, initially led analysts to fear an increase in wholesale oil prices and subsequent impact on household energy costs.

Contrary to these concerns, oil prices have remained relatively stable, and European gas reserves have been higher than anticipated during a mild winter, with European gas prices returning to pre-Ukraine war levels since November.

Cornwall Insight anticipates that energy prices will continue to be comparatively low through 2024. They predict a further decline to £1,497 for a typical annual bill from July, followed by a slight increase to £1,541 starting in October.

This forecast is a welcome development for Britons who have been dealing with increased expenses across various sectors, from food to utilities, amidst persistently high inflation rates, with energy-driven EU inflation hitting lower-income households hardest across member states.

Energy bills saw a steep rise in 2021, which escalated further due to the Ukraine conflict in 2022, driving up wholesale gas prices. This surge prompted government intervention to subsidize bills, with the UK price cap estimated to cost around £89bn to the public purse, capping costs to a typical household at £2,500.

Cornwall Insight noted that the supply of liquified natural gas to Europe had not been as adversely affected by the Red Sea disruptions as initially feared. Moreover, the UK has been well-supplied with gas from the US, which has become a more significant supplier since the Ukraine war, even as US electricity prices have risen to multi-decade highs. Contributing factors also include lower gas prices in Asia, mild weather, and robust gas availability.

Craig Lowrey, a principal consultant at Cornwall Insight, remarked that concerns about Red Sea events driving up energy prices have not materialized, allowing households to expect a reduction in prices.

On Monday, the next-month wholesale gas price dropped by 4% to 65p a therm.

However, Lowrey cautioned that a complete return to pre-crisis energy bill levels remains unlikely due to ongoing market impacts from shifting away from Russian energy sources and persistent geopolitical tensions, as well as policy changes such as Britain’s Energy Security Bill shaping market reforms.

Richard Neudegg, director of regulation at Uswitch, welcomed the potential further reduction of the price cap in April. However, he pointed out that this offers little solace to households currently struggling with high winter energy costs during the winter. Neudegg urged Ofgem, the energy regulator, to prompt suppliers to reintroduce more competitive and affordable fixed-price deals.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IESO Fictitious Demand Error inflated HOEP in the Ontario electricity market, after embedded generation was mis-modeled; the OEB says double-counted load lifted wholesale prices and shifted costs via the Global Adjustment.

Key Points

An IESO modeling flaw that double-counted load, inflating HOEP and charges in Ontario's wholesale market.

✅ Double-counted unmetered load from embedded generation

✅ Inflated HOEP; shifted costs via Global Adjustment

✅ OEB flagged transparency; exporters paid more

For almost a year, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing prices to spike and hundreds of millions of dollars in extra charges to consumers, according to the provincial energy regulator.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) also failed to tell anyone about the error once it noticed and fixed it.

The error likely added between $450 million and $560 million to hourly rates and other charges before it was fixed in April 2017, according to a report released this month by the Ontario Energy Board’s Market Surveillance Panel.

It did this by adding as much as 220 MW of “fictitious demand” to the market starting in May 2016, when the IESO started paying consumers who reduced their demand for power during peak periods. This involved the integration of small-scale embedded generation (largely made up of solar) into its wholesale model for the first time.

The mistake assumed maximum consumption at such sites without meters, and double-counted that consumption.

The OEB said the mistake particularly hurt exporters and some end-users, who did not benefit from a related reduction of a global adjustment rate applicable to other customers.

“The most direct impact of the increase in HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price) was felt by Ontario consumers and exporters of electricity, who paid an artificially high HOEP, to the benefit of generators and importers,” the OEB said.

The mix-up did not result in an equivalent increase in total system costs, because changes to the HOEP are offset by inverse changes to a electricity cost allocation mechanism such as the Global Adjustment rate, the OEB noted.

A chart from the OEB's report shows the time of day when fictitious demand was added to the system, and its influence on hourly rates.

Peak time spikes
The OEB said that the fictitious demand “regularly inflated” the hourly price of energy and other costs calculated as a direct function of it.

For almost a year, Ontario's electricity system operator @IESO_Tweets erroneously counted enough phantom demand to power a small city, causing price spikes and hundreds of millions in charges to consumers, @OntEnergyBoard says. @5thEstate reports.

It estimated the average increase to the HOEP was as much as $4.50/MWh, but that price spikes, compounded by scheduled OEB rate changes, would have been much higher during busier times, such as the mid-morning and early evening.

“In times of tight supply, the addition of fictitious demand often had a dramatic inflationary impact on the HOEP,” the report said.

That meant on one summer evening in 2016 the hourly rate jumped to $1,619/MWh, it said, which was the fourth highest in the history of the Ontario wholesale electricity market.

“Additional demand is met by scheduling increasingly expensive supply, thus increasing the market price. In instances where supply is tight and the supply stack is steep, small increases in demand can cause significant increases in the market price.

The OEB questioned why, as of September this year, the IESO had failed to notify its customers or the broader public, amid a broader auditor-regulator dispute that drew political attention, about the mistake and its effect on prices.

“It's time for greater transparency on where electricity costs are really coming from,” said Sarah Buchanan, clean energy program manager at Environmental Defence.

“Ontario will be making big decisions in the coming years about whether to keep our electricity grid clean, or burn more fossil fuels to keep the lights on,” she added. “These decisions need to be informed by the best possible evidence, and that can't happen if critical information is hidden.”

In a response to the OEB report on Monday, the IESO said its own initial analysis found that the error likely pushed wholesale electricity payments up by $225 million. That calculation assumed that the higher prices would have changed consumer behaviour, while upcoming electricity auctions were cited as a way to lower costs, it said.

In response to questions, a spokesperson said residential and small commercial consumers would have saved $11 million in electricity costs over the 11-month period, even as a typical bill increase loomed province-wide, while larger consumers would have paid an extra $14 million.

That is because residential and small commercial customers pay some costs via time-of-use rates, including a temporary recovery rate framework, the IESO said, while larger customers pay them in a way that reflects their share of overall electricity use during the five highest demand hours of the year.

The IESO said it could not compensate those that had paid too much, given the complexity of the system, and that the modelling error did not have a significant impact on ratepayers.

While acknowledging the effects of the mistake would vary among its customers, the IESO said the net market impact was less than $10 million, amid ongoing legislation to lower electricity rates in Ontario.

It said it would improve testing of its processes prior to deployment and agreed to publicly disclose errors that significantly affect the wholesale market in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. coal-fired generation 2021 rose as higher natural gas prices, stable coal costs, and a recovering power sector shifted the generation mix; capacity factors rebounded despite low coal stocks and ongoing plant retirements.

Key Points

Coal output rose 22% on high gas prices and higher capacity factors; a 5% decline is expected in 2022.

✅ Natural gas delivered cost averaged $4.93/MMBtu, more than double 2020

✅ Coal capacity factor rose to ~51% from 40% in 2020

✅ 2022 coal generation forecast to fall about 5%

We expect 22% more U.S. coal-fired generation in 2021 than in 2020, according to our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). The U.S. electric power sector has been generating more electricity from coal-fired power plants this year as a result of significantly higher natural gas prices and relatively stable coal prices, even as non-fossil sources reached 40% of total generation. This year, 2021, will yield the first year-over-year increase in coal generation in the United States since 2014, highlighted by a January power generation jump earlier in the year.

Coal and natural gas have been the two largest sources of electricity generation in the United States. In many areas of the country, these two fuels compete to supply electricity based on their relative costs and sensitivity to policies and gas prices as well. U.S. natural gas prices have been more volatile than coal prices, so the cost of natural gas often determines the relative share of generation provided by natural gas and coal.

Because natural gas-fired power plants convert fuel to electricity more efficiently than coal-fired plants, record natural gas generation has at times underscored that advantage, and natural gas-fired generation can have an economic advantage even if natural gas prices are slightly higher than coal prices. Between 2015 and 2020, the cost of natural gas delivered to electric generators remained relatively low and stable. This year, however, natural gas prices have been much higher than in recent years. The year-to-date delivered cost of natural gas to U.S. power plants has averaged $4.93 per million British thermal units (Btu), more than double last year’s price.

The overall decline in electricity demand in 2020 and record-low natural gas prices led coal plants to significantly reduce the percentage of time that they generated power. In 2020, the utilization rate (known as the capacity factor) of U.S. coal-fired generators averaged 40%. Before 2010, coal capacity factors routinely averaged 70% or more. This year’s higher natural gas prices have increased the average coal capacity factor to about 51%, which is almost the 2018 average, a year when wind and solar reached 10% nationally.

Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue as solar and wind expand in the generation mix. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends power generation from reactors, prioritizing energy security, renewables, and emissions goals amid the Ukraine war, natural gas shortages, decommissioning plans, and climate change debates across Europe and the national power grid.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out ends reactors, shifting to renewables to balance energy security, emissions, climate goals.

✅ Three reactors closed: Emsland, Isar II, Neckarwestheim II

✅ Pivot to renewables, efficiency, and grid resilience

✅ Continued roles in fuel fabrication and decommissioning

Germany is no longer producing any electricity from nuclear power plants, a move widely seen as turning its back on nuclear for good.

Closures of the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II nuclear plants in Germany were expected. The country announced plans to phase out nuclear power in 2011. However, in the fall of 2022, with the Ukraine war constraining access to energy, especially in Europe, Germany decided to extend nuclear power operations for an additional few months to bolster supplies.

“This was a highly anticipated action. The German government extended the lifetimes of these plants for a few months but never planned beyond that,” David Victor, a professor of innovation and public policy at UC San Diego, said.

Responses to the closures ranged from aghast that Germany would shut down a clean source of energy production, especially as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy. In contrast, the global response to anthropogenic climate change continues to be insufficient to celebratory that the country will avoid any nuclear accidents like those that have happened in other parts of the world.

A collection of esteemed scientists, including two Nobel laureates and professors from MIT and Columbia, made a last-minute plea in an open letter published on April 14 on the nuclear advocacy group’s website, RePlaneteers, to keep the reactors operating, reviving questions about a resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany today.

“Given the threat that climate change poses to life on our planet and the obvious energy crisis in which Germany and Europe find themselves due to the unavailability of Russian natural gas, we call on you to continue operating the last remaining German nuclear power plants,” the letter states.

The open letter states that the Emsland, Isar II, and Neckarwestheim II facilities provided more than 10 million German households with electricity, even as some officials argued that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue then. That’s a quarter of the population.

“This is hugely disappointing, when a secure low carbon 24/7 source of energy such as nuclear was available and could have continued operation for another 40 years,” Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association. “Germany’s nuclear industry has been world-class. All three reactors shut down at the weekend performed extremely well.”

Despite the shutdown, some segments of nuclear industrial processes will continue to operate. “Germany’s nuclear sector will continue to be first class in the wider nuclear supply chain in areas such as fuel fabrication and decommissioning,” Preston said.

While the open letter did not succeed in keeping the nuclear reactors open, it does underscore a crucial reason why nuclear power has been part of global energy conversations recently, with some arguing it is a needed option for climate policy after a generational lull in the construction of nuclear power plants: climate change.

Generating electricity with nuclear reactors does not create any greenhouse gases. And as global climate change response efforts continue to fall short of emission targets, atomic energy is getting renewed consideration, and Germany has even considered a U-turn on its phaseout amid renewed debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News